No 4 (2025)

The article examines the problem of visualising the social significance of linguistic expression in various traditions of philosophical and socio-humanitarian knowledge that have developed from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day. By the problem of visualising the social significance of linguistic expression, the authors mean how representatives of different approaches (using the example of analytic philosophy, sociolinguistics, and terminology) consider the influence of social factors on language. These areas are used not by chance, due to the differences that arise in the process of studying the problem of social significance by their representatives. It should be noted that these traditions are formed simultaneously and influence each other. In the field of analytic philosophy, the visualisation of the problem of the social significance of linguistic expression is considered by its representatives (e.g., G. Frege, L. Wittgenstein, S. Kripke, G. Baker, P. Hacker) as a particular aspect of the problem of the meaning of linguistic expression. More precisely, within this field, the focus is more on the influence of social factors on the process of signifying and interpreting linguistic expression. It is noted that the actualisation of social factors within the problem of the meaning of linguistic expression is connected with Wittgenstein’s approach to this problem through the aspect of determining linguistic meaning in the process of its use (communication), from which the problem of following the rule emerges. The discussion that arose in analytic philosophy regarding this interpretation demonstrated that the diversity of social circumstances does not allow for the use of universal and stable tools for signifying and interpreting linguistic expression. Nevertheless, representatives of analytic philosophy are more interested in the cognitive aspect of the problem of linguistic meaning, which is greatly influenced by the communicative factor, manifested in the uncertainty of the rules that participants in interaction may adhere to. In the field of sociolinguistics, the problem of visualising the social meaning of linguistic expression is posed and studied as a separate important problem (e.g., W. Labov, D. Hymes, P. Eckert). Nevertheless, the need to understand it in relation to the problem of general meaning is emphasised. The authors note that the specificity of visualising the problem of social meaning is conditioned by the study of direct communication and human participation in it in the fullness of their social circumstances. Hence, the emphasis is on language not as a formed semiotic system with established rules (writing) following the example of analytic philosophy, but on oral (verbal) communication. This shift leads to the actualisation of the communicative function of language and to the understanding that the problem of social significance is linked to the individual and social characteristics of the speaker, which is why the latter is variable, spontaneous and difficult to control. In such a visualisation, the possibility of identifying the cognitive function of language and determining the stability of manifestations of a person’s social status and their presentation in the communicator’s speech virtually disappears. In the field of terminology, the problem of social significance is considered through the simultaneous coupling of the cognitive and communicative functions of language. But the peculiarity of this field is that the main essence of the communicative function of terminology is to translate the cognitive content of knowledge represented by the latter (cognitive-communicative function). As the experience of terminology theories (e.g., O. Wüster, M. Cabré, R. Temmerman) shows, such a combination is difficult to implement, since when demonstrating the cognitive function, the communicative component is lost, and when actualising the communicative function, the uncertainty of the cognitive side of the meaning of terminology increases. Thus, the problem of visualising social meaning depends on the methods used to achieve it and is conditioned by the great variability of the social conditions in which linguistic expressions are used, which complicates the search for a universal approach to it.

Modern intercultural education involves integrating language and culture in the educational process. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop descriptive models of the cultural code, which would include a verbal and non-verbal component. The idea of connotative semiotics by L. Hjelmslev can serve as the basis for such a model. Names of clothes and clothes themselves as a social and cultural code – how are they related? This is the question we are trying to answer. R. Barthes made a similar attempt in The System of Fashion, but in his concept, clothes are only an expression of fashion as a quasi-value of bourgeois society. We partially use Barthes’ terminology, but we explore the code of clothes without imposed connotations. The “real” clothing code is a visual code, where clothing itself is a sign. However, an object cannot signify itself, so the content of the sign in this case is different from clothing. But this is not the entire outside world, as Barthes claims. We believe that clothing as a sign defines a person, and all other meanings derive from this. Clothing can indicate a social status, a role, personal qualities, group membership, and express any of these meanings as an abstract idea. According to Saussure’s theory, the signifier of a word is an acoustic image, while the signified is a mental representation of an object or concept. The content of a linguistic sign is not identical to the object itself, and the concept serves as a necessary link. The importance of a concept is not obvious to a native speaker, who sees a direct connection between a word and a thing, but it becomes noticeable when languages are compared. Differences in the ways of understanding objective realities are expressed in the discrepancy between the signs of the real and verbal codes, the presence of non-equivalent units and lacunae, as well as in incomplete equivalence, and semantic differences are possible not only in connotations, but also in the conceptual core. When comparing Russian and Chinese, we find that Russian names for clothing define it as either male or female, but this meaning is not reflected in the structure of the word. In Chinese, the name of a piece of clothing either contains the corresponding marker or is gender-neutral. The meaning of a clothing name can refer either to the item of clothing or to its cultural significance, in the latter case, a connotation arises. However, the meaning of a word is only revealed in context. The minimum context that can reveal both sides of a “real” sign in a language is a syntactic construction that describes a person based on their clothing. There are three types of such constructions in Russian: predicative description, non-predicative description, and metonymy. The second option, “человек/люди в...”, appears to be the most promising in terms of study. This construction can be used to comprehensively represent the clothing code (including both non-verbal and verbal components) in the context of teaching Russian as a foreign language.

An example of a complex interaction in the system “Science, Technology, Society” can serve as a coupling between science and politics, science and power. The study aims to analyze the problematic of the symbolic power of scientific knowledge and to search for characteristic forms of its actualization. The focus is also on the problem of the relationship between real and symbolic power. The history of science and culture, comparative analysis, analysis of everyday life, and case analysis are used as tools. The scientific and theoretical basis of the work is the ideas of P. Bourdieu, who linked acts of manifestation of symbolic power with the role of statements made by different actors of social reality. The similarity of Bourdieu’s position with M. Foucault’s ideas of the totality of power is emphasized. Within the framework of the case of scientific and expert knowledge, the prevalence of the symbolic power of scientists over their real power, which in fact takes place only episodically, is shown. The power-symbolic role of scientific and technological agents is briefly discussed. Like human actors, they are characterized by a dual power role. Aspects related to the interpretation of the image of the “ivory tower” as a location for prognostic statements of scientists are discussed. Here, two polar scenarios are distinguished: skeptical (dismissive) and visionary (strategic). It is demonstrated that in their implementation, subtle relationships of scientists with their “knowledge” and “non-knowledge” are traced. In this regard, visionary scientists (for example, M. Faraday), possessing an implicit socio-technical imaginativeness (Sh. Jasanoff), are most endowed with symbolic power. Four epistemic processes inherent in the scientific and practical activity are distinguished: pursuit, examination, research, investigation (inquiry). The features of their interaction in the broad context of the existence of science are discussed. It is demonstrated that a well-known hero, Sherlock Holmes, acts as a special actor integrating various types of “investigations” in his ontology. Currently, he is an entire cultural phenomenon. At the same time, this phenomenon can be interpreted as a “cultural statement” conditioned by the influence of scientific knowledge and expressing the corresponding attributes of symbolic power. Using the analysis of classic texts by A. Conan Doyle, it is shown that Sherlock Holmes’s activity is realized in a distributed space – outsideness (M. M. Bakhtin) laboratory. Here, the crime scene turns out to be the detective’s laboratory location (field laboratory), and evidence and small details acquire the role of laboratory samples, laboratory records. In the context of pressing problems of our time (uncertainty, risks, artificial intelligence), the characteristic humanity of the appearance of the great detective Sherlock Holmes is emphasized, which is another of his significant symbolic elements.

The functional resource of the visual semiotic code, as realized in the educational text, is considered as a complex structural and meaningful sign phenomenon. The educational text is the most important component of the educational process, particularly in the field of multicultural language communication, as it conveys fragments of cognitive knowledge, influences students’ consciousness, and forms their worldview, including their understanding of cultural values. The learning materials are linguodidactic texts whose aim is to learn a foreign language with the help of the language itself: Natural language is defined both as an object and an instrument of cognition. In order to solve linguo-didactic problems, a whole arsenal of other units of the visual semiotic code is used in addition to the signs of the natural language to be learned. Their role in conveying cognitive and cultural knowledge is well known. The starting point is the idea of organizing the conceptual content of the linguo-didactic text in the form of a conceptosphere, comprising a series of meanings united around the key concepts of “human” and “language”. The particular importance of the semiotic level for the content of the conceptosphere of such a didactic text is emphasized. The role of the visual semiotic code in modeling the conceptosphere of an educational text is examined through the example of a textbook on Russian as a foreign language for students from the Republic of Kenya. The functional properties of visual signs as elements of the text structure are analyzed in terms of their ability to act as a means of conceptualizing the content and conveying fragments of the worldview of the authors – native speakers of the Russian language and Russian culture – to addressees who represent Kenyan linguaculture and know the Russian language as secondary language personalities. The main focus is on analyzing the cognitive properties of visual signs that function in educational linguistic texts as a means of forming a secondary worldview in students. The results of the study demonstrate that the visual semiotic code is an integral and active component of modeling the conceptosphere of the linguo-didactic text, thereby ensuring effective communication between the author and the student within the context of intercultural educational interaction.

A new position has now been introduced in Russian schools: advisor to the director for educational work and interaction with public organizations. This study analyzes the results of a free-association survey conducted among three focus groups – schoolchildren, university students, and educational advisors – regarding their interpretation of the concept of “cultural sovereignty”. The findings indicate that the concept is predominantly perceived from the standpoint of “ensuring independence” and “protection from destructive influence”, with less association to the preservation of “cultural identity”. The category of identity was present in the definitions of only 14.5% of the schoolchildren, 23.5% of the students, and 16% of the educators. Subsequently, the research focused on identifying the presence of visual markers of cultural identity. It was determined that such markers are characteristic primarily of educators (found in 100% of their responses), indicating the presence of specific imagery in their understanding of identity. The responses of schoolchildren and students were more abstract and generalized. The visual field of the concept “cultural identity” for all the respondent groups is built around connections with folk culture: traditions, crafts, folklore, and language. Images of cultural spaces and art were also fairly common. Notably absent were visual markers demonstrating a connection to locality (cities, landscapes), science, technology, or modern achievements. This suggests a predominance of a cultural-historical perspective in the perception of sovereignty and identity, but it also points to a degree of stereotyping and a disconnect from modernity. A direct associative method implemented with the educators confirmed these results. The educational practices of the advisors are primarily concentrated on traditional formats (e.g., conversations) or officially established programs (e.g., “Conversations about Important Things”). Over half of the educators experienced difficulties in defining methodological approaches aimed at fostering a value-based attitude towards the concepts “cultural sovereignty” and “identity”, highlighting a clear need for enhancing the preparation of teachers for this work. It has been concluded that there is a shortage of a semiotic approach to the implementation of this training.